Thursday, January 22, 2009

Illegal Immigrants ARE a Drain to State, County, and City Governments.

Here it is, straight from the horses mouth:

States are facing bankruptcy with governors running all over Washington looking for handouts, warning of certain catastrophe if aid is denied them. Instead of begging like this, they should try demanding. They should demand that the federal government reimburse them for all the immigrant services they pay for on behalf of the feds. When it comes to immigration the Federal government sets the policy but the states pay the cost. That’s not fair. Claiming reimbursement affords the states the high ground, a much better position to get money than begging on Pennsylvania Ave., pedaling fear.

For decades states have provided mandatory services to immigrants, teaching them, training them, and providing emergency room treatment as well as police and fire protection for them. These services have gone to all immigrants, both undocumented and on the path to citizenship. It’s work for which states seldom get credit, though it amounts to billions of dollars every year.

If states could win reimbursement, it would go directly into saving jobs. Providing services to immigrants is labor intensive. These are the jobs that are most vulnerable: teachers, social workers, police, firemen, and EMT workers. Keeping these folks employed benefits everyone not just immigrants. And federal reimbursement would free up state money to plug other holes. This is a win/win: good for immigrants, good for the states.

The National Governors Association and the United States Conference of Mayors should make federal reimbursement for immigration costs a top priority. It turns out that the states which would benefit the most are the most broke—think California and Florida, even Michigan. Full reimbursement for immigration costs would be huge for these states.

Sound crazy? It’s happened before. Washington reimbursed states for immigration costs in 1986 when immigration reform was last passed. The bill required the federal government to pay states for the costs for legalizing three million immigrants. Called State Legalization Impact Assistance Grants (SLIAG)—surely we can come up with a better acronym—the program allocated $4 billion to the states. It included money for public assistance, education, ESL training, health benefits, and more.


Did you read what I read?? They know that on the Local levels, i.e., State, County, and City Governments, that Illegal Immigrants receive more in services than they pay in taxes. They admit it!! So then why all the hoopla about they (Illegal Aliens) pay more in taxes then they receive in benefits?? Why the lying on their part??

I think the idea above is a good one, and as stated, "it has been done before". I think everybody would agree that the states should be paid back by the Federal Government for the services paid to harbor Deportable Aliens.

23 comments:

Alie said...

I need some clarification on this, Liquid, as I am not sure I understand.

Are you saying that the Federal government should reimburse the states and local governments for the costs incurred due to illegal immigration?

I guess in a way that is a good idea, except that I am thinking this: my state mandates e verify and many communities have implemented 287(g) or at least are not very tolerant of illegal immigration. There are a few pockets of resistance, but overall my state is holding its own against illegal immigration.

Now, will our tax money HERE (federal taxes) go to bail out communities in So. California who allowed themselves to be inundated with illegal aliens?? If so, I'm not sure I agree with that. Also, if local communities are having their bills paid by Federal taxes, they are less likely to oppose illegal immigration because they'll feel as though the costs will be spread around all over the country. Why should someone from a state who enforces their immigration laws have to bail out a state where they don't??

BTW, love the new look here.

Alie said...

I think I've got a better idea: how about states which are currently soft on illegal immigration start getting with the program.

Mandate e verify, implement 287(g), required proof of citizenship or legal residence to receive public benefits. That would be a good start.

I like that idea better than shifting my tax money over to a state who looks the other way on illegal immigration.

Liquidmicro said...

I think we could come up with a way that would pay the State back from Fed funds on employment taxes. Details to iron out. Fed knows from which state the money comes from and could send it back to compensate for some of the costs incurred for services and for repatriation.

The moral of the topic was that the PRO's know that Illegal immigrants are a drain to the State and Local Govt's.

Alie said...

They are such bold-faced liars! The ends justifies the means with them.

Look it's just common sense: someone with a 3rd grade education making low wages supporting a wife and six kids is using public services.

If this were 100 years ago, the welfare programs wouldn't be available. Many people returned to their homelands back then as they realized that the streets weren't paved with gold and they couldn't make it here.

Liquidmicro said...

It's all about garnering sympathy and imposing their moral values on the rest of us. They clammer about Human Rights and Indigenous Rights, yet if you look up the UN documents of each, there is nothing giving them free travel across country boundaries. Even as Indigenous, they are bound to the country of which they reside.

Alie said...

"...if you look up the UN documents of each, there is nothing giving them free travel across country boundaries. Even as Indigenous, they are bound to the country of which they reside."

Good point of which to be aware!

Anonymous said...

What the rest of the article goes on to say.

Why should immigration reformers care about helping states?

Can’t their lobbyists do that?

Don't immigratns already pay into states more than they take out?

And how can we trust the states?

Too many have passed laws harmful to immigrants. The Governor of Rhode Island sicked his cops on immigrants. Arizona wants to dump them over their border. Wouldn’t states just use the money for enforcement?

Some would go to enforcement but much more would go to pay for the mandatory servies so helpful to immigrants.

For most state leaders including the Rhode Island Governor, the origins of their anti immigration policies are budgetary not racist. In fact, states desperately want what immigrants provide: population.

From federal transfer payments to the number of congressmen, to the Electoral College, everything that makes a state powerful, requires increased population.

State knows that immigrants are their only realistic bet to get it. This makes immigrants and states natural allies. Only the unfair way the federal government dumps immigration costs on the states keeps them apart.

If immigrants and states did strike an alliance, the future of comprehensive immigration reform would look much brighter. In the last go around the testimony of state authorities tended to support nativist arguments that immigrants were a drain on society. If states change sides and support reformers, the nativists will stand alone, a distinct minority. Reformers will never achieve reform unless they build these kinds of coalitions. It’s what President Obama expects.

It turns out immigration reformers have something to say about the nation’s finances after all. Grab a seat at the economic table and start talking.


The point being that if the states finally forced the Feds to address immigration reform, by making them pay, comprehensive reform would be passed in a minute.

The anti-immigration crowd in Washington gets away with continually preventing any reform because it's not their dime. The fed makes money on immigrants, both legal and undocumented. So do most States . The over all economy benefits also. It's only at the local level that costs can outweigh gains. (as they do with any other low-income population)

The author is pointing out that states wound benifit through an alliance with immigrants in numerous ways and the Fed would then be forced to clean up it's act if it had to pay for it's inaction

Much like NCLB where the Fed sets educational mandates for the states to adhere to yet refuses to pay for them. ...inaction on immigration reform has alowed them to look and talk tough on immigration without paying the price.

Liquidmicro said...

You bring up some interesting ideology, Anon, and I would be interested in the links you could provide to prove your assertions of the States would benefit from CIR and Deportable Aliens.

I agree in the fact that the Feds should be reimbursing the states for expenses paid for services rendered to Deportable Aliens.

The problem I see with your statement of: It's only at the local level that costs can outweigh gains. (as they do with any other low-income population) is the simple fact that once granted amnesty and given valid SS numbers, most then would be part of the low-income population and would then drain the coffers even further as they would receive tax refunds and credits further out pacing what they are paying in and placing us deeper into debt.

The point being that if the states finally forced the Feds to address immigration reform, by making them pay, comprehensive reform would be passed in a minute. Economics is a funny thing, and the assumption that CIR would pass in a minute is based on an ideology that not all economic peoples agree with.

Anonymous said...

As to your first question, it's really quite simple ... lets look at the current situation:


An analysis by Barron's estimated the size of the shadow economy at about $970 billion, or nearly 9 percent of the goods and services produced by the real economy.

The service sector employs the most illegal immigrants with 33 percent, followed by the construction industry, production and food processing and farming, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

The hotel and restaurant businesses and construction are the big employers. More than 1 of every 4 drywall installers and landscape workers are illegal, the center estimates. About 1 in 5 workers in meat and poultry packing are illegal, as are about 1 in 6 in the leisure and hospitality industry or construction.

Illegal immigrants make far less than the rest of the population. Their average family income of $27,400 is more than 40 percent below the legal immigrant or native family income of about $47,700, the Pew Hispanic Center found.

That's because illegal immigrants work cheap and don't complain; those that do complain are easily replaced. They have little bargaining power, and employers take advantage of that.


http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/12/6/104841.shtml

(if you read the whole article you will find that it's general assertions are very much in line with your anti-immigrant stance so as not to appear like I'm quoting pro-immigrant propaganda)

Now let's look at whats going on:

currently the underground economy accounts for about 10% of all economic activity

this results not only from the wages of undocumented immigrants but the fraudulent accounting and bookkeeping practices used by businesses to hide those wages and the profits made from them....it's not called "of the books" for nothing. ...as we've seen as a result of some of the workplace raids like New Bedford and Postville, these employers use elaborate schemes and fraudulent accounting practices to keep these "shadow workers" from showing up on the books... these schemes rob the public of billions of dollars in tax revenue each year.

bring this economic activity out of the shadows and have employees and employers pay their fair share by enacting reforms and those billions flow into the public coffers.

This goes to your second point.

Note the 40% difference between the incomes of the undocumented and that of US citizens and legal residents. This difference does not exists because undocumented workers want to work for pennies on the dollar. It exists because their undocumented status prevents them from demanding fair and equitable wages. ... how else can one explain that studies show once an undocumented immigrant gains status their wages always increase dramatically .... they are no better educated or skilled simply with the issuance of a green card...they are still the same person, yet their pay increases.

Quite simply, it is not the undocumented immigrant that causes the wage differential...it is his/her status.

So with the enactment of reofrm, the states would be able to bring that 10% underground economy out of the shadows ....and raise the wages for all workers as the employers ability to exploit the undocumented at the expense of all workers would end.


quite simple really .... and so much less costly than wall building, huge law enforcement budgets to root out undocumented workers, and an ever growing expense of detention and incarceration.

who knows...maybe with all those newly legal workers clambering for better wages and health benefits, we may finally get the government to address our national health care crisis also.

Anonymous said...

Alie said:

my state mandates e verify and many communities have implemented 287(g) or at least are not very tolerant of illegal immigration....Now, will our tax money HERE (federal taxes) go to bail out communities in So. California who allowed themselves to be inundated with illegal aliens?? If so, I'm not sure I agree with that.

Funny, but I would bet you live in one of the 32 states that receives more money from the federal government than it pays in:

http://democraticactionteam.org/redstatesocialism/index.html

and that California, New York, Mass, Conn, New Jersey, etc ...all those states that allow themselves to "be inundated with illegal aliens" ... who pay far more than they receive, ultimately pay for those 287g programs along with much of your states social services etc.

Funny how that works heh?

Those most tolerant of immigrants contribute the most, while those who contribute least complain about "their taxes" going to others.

How about we end the red state welfare system and let each state receive back what they put in. ... then we can talk about "fair"

Liquidmicro said...

From the article your article gets its info from:

It's not just illegal immigrants fueling the growth of the underground economy. It's also corporate downsizing, which has forced many workers to go out on their own. "We have had an 85% taxpayer compliance rate," says Nina Olson, the IRS's taxpayer advocate. "I expect the number to decline," because the portion of employees who have taxes withheld from regular paychecks is falling. Such employees are 99% compliant with tax laws, she says, but in today's economy, "more people are being treated as independent contractors. We are losing people from the withholding environment."

Granted the Deportable Alien is part of that equation, but by no means do they equate to the entire amount. The next point would be to point out the date of your article, Dec. 2005, when things seemed to be going well. I would then point out the Housing bubble burst and the minority sub-prime loans.

Across the nation, black and Hispanic borrowers helped fuel a multiyear housing boom, accounting for 49% of the increase in homeowners from 1995 to 2005, says Harvard's Joint Center for Housing Studies. But Hispanics and African-Americans were far more likely to leverage the American dream with subprime loans — higher-cost products for buyers with impaired credit — that are now going bad at an alarming rate.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/housing/2007-04-25-subprime-minorities-usat_N.htm

So the question still is, who do we believe? Who's model do we follow?

How about unemployment right now, California just jumped to 9.3%, a full point in the month of December.

As for wage difference due to status??... if the worker is granted legal status, he/she still works at the same company, no difference in wages. The only time their wages would go up, or down for that matter, would be when they changed jobs. They still remain in poverty, nothing has changed other than the tax credits and refunds they will be receiving will be more than what they pay into the Fed. Gov't.

You seem to think companies still offer health benefits. With the surplus of workers there's no need to offer benefits to entice workers to work for you, they have become a dime a dozen. Cutting back on benefits equates to more profit for the company, bigger bonuses for the CEO's.

Here's a little story... my wife worked for a company for 5 years, had health care through her employer. The employer changed plans based on their profits, profits went up yearly, yet health care went to crappier co-pays and plans and more expensive for us, a family of 4. We found it much cheaper to drop her company health care, keep her share of the expense and purchase the plan ourselves. We actually saved money, cut our expense in half and had better coverage.

Sorry, I just don't see a national health care crisis.

Liquidmicro said...

as we've seen as a result of some of the workplace raids like New Bedford and Postville, these employers use elaborate schemes and fraudulent accounting practices to keep these "shadow workers" from showing up on the books... these schemes rob the public of billions of dollars in tax revenue each year.

If I'm not mistaken, all these employees were on the books from New Bedford, Postville, Laurel, IFCO, Poultry Plants, Hog Slughtering, etc. Now, what robs the public of money is the day laborers, the doing work for cash, paying in cash for merchandise, etc. Cash is not traceable from hand to hand.

Liquidmicro said...

So what of pay, does illegal immigration have a direct effect on that too? Perhaps not. A study by Douglas Massey of four Mexican communities observed in the United States and Mexico shows that an illegal status is not necessarily a reason for lower pay in itself, but rather it has an indirect influence. Its association with breaks or short periods of stay, as well as the tendency of illegal migrants to confine their job search to lowly paid sectors, depresses pay levels for illegal and legal migrants alike.
....
The question of the effects of illegal immigration on wages and employment of society’s most vulnerable workers is an extremely delicate one. Take the minimum wage for instance. Raising it – or other forms of guaranteed income – may in fact act as a spur to illegal migration, since the higher minimum wage payable to nationals increases the attraction to employers of hiring illegal immigrants. This crowding out affects legal immigrants and national low-wage earners alike, compromising their work-related advantages and undermining their job security, particularly when unemployment is high. It is precisely the kind of argument used in support of policies to limit recruitment of new immigrants.
....
The truth is that labor market studies have so far failed to identify and incorporate what is specific to illegal migration as a subject of economic analysis. That is probably why most studies on illegal migration, particularly in the United States, end up equating employment of illegal migrants with that of unskilled migrants. The difference between the two groups does suggest that policy-makers dealing with the question should be more concerned about the effect illegal immigrants have on wages and the labor market, rather than concentrating on controlling their undocumented status per se.

Liquidmicro said...

Illegal immigrants make far less than the rest of the population. Their average family income of $27,400 is more than 40 percent below the legal immigrant or native family income of about $47,700, the Pew Hispanic Center found.

Here's the other problem from your article... it takes the PEW info out of context and does not tell you why there is such a disparity of 40%.

The incomes of unauthorized migrants and their families shown here reflect the comparative levels of
education shown earlier and the occupations/industries where they work. Specifically, average family
income of unauthorized migrant families is more than 40% below the average income of either legal
immigrant or native families. In addition to education and occupation differences, another factor
contributing to this difference is the lower labor force participation of unauthorized females that results
in fewer workers per family than in the other groups.


http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/46.pdf

Anonymous said...

As to your statement about Postville, New Bedford etc all being "one the books...that's exactly what I'm talking about. ...they weren't... that's a great misnomer about these big companies.

Take New Bedford for example, where the owners had set up dummy and shell corps that processed various payrolls to avoid overtime regulations and to essentially launder and hide expenses and profits.

Being "on the books" means nothing when there are two or three sets of them and they're all cooked.... which they have to be when your workforce is working without overtime pay, or minimum wage etc.

If these companies were to show real gross receipts and net profits offset only by the diminished payrolls they work on, the government would be getting a huge chunk of their over-inflated profits. Hence they must cook the books in order to make the whole endeavor profitable.

There is much about the workings of the underground economy that doesn't show up in the literature... but must be understood to get the real picture of whats going on.

Liquidmicro said...

I don't know about your misnomer of the workers not being on the books, but everything I have read and all the court documents on all of those companies, none have been shown to have a second or third set of books. The workers all had ID's and the employer had I-9's, although the Postville situation does show that the same SS was used for more than one worker.

I own a small business, I know how the underground economy works, I compete against it everyday. Employers can also higher people on salaries and work them for more than the state mandate, as long as the employee and the employer have an agreement. Many Deportable Aliens took jobs that paid less than others in the same industry simply because they could earn in a half hour what they would earn all day back home.

Workers, even if they are Deportable Aliens, if they can prove they have been shisted, can sue and in turn if they win, can collect back monies owed. Again look to Michael Bianco Ind.

Last month, Michael Bianco founder Francesco Insolia _ himself an immigrant from Italy _ pleaded guilty to harboring and concealing illegal immigrants. He faces up to 18 months in prison when he's sentenced in January. He also agreed to pay workers $850,000 to settle a lawsuit claiming back pay.


Village fills with deportees as US cracks down


So until there is actual evidence as documented by the courts, I see nothing but assumptions. Many employers find it easy to pay in cash to stay in business, cuts down on workers comp and other payroll liabilities, that's also where the term Independent Contractor can come into play.

There is a million different ways to go about all of this, unintended consequences play major roles in all of them, but if you think that by granting Deportable Aliens 'legal' status is going to change the way things get done by business owners making profits and staying in business, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Liquidmicro said...

The only option left to do to try to get employers to have legal people on their payrolls and to pay the taxes is to lower the taxes, lower the costs of operating and running a business, but even if that is done, there are those that will still work for cash, pay in cash, and have the underground economy, all in cash. As I stated earlier, cash has no fingerprints as to who has it and who spends it.

Liquidmicro said...

Executive pleads guilty to hiring illegals

The Bianco company (MBI) also pleaded guilty to 18 specific felony counts of knowingly hiring illegal aliens; helping to harbor and shield illegal aliens from detection from authorities; failing to pay them full overtime; Social Security fraud; and mail fraud, “all in an effort to maximize profits on a series of lucrative military contracts,” said U.S. Attorney Michael J. Sullivan.

It seems he paid them all their hours to include overtime, but did not pay them the 1/2 time additional owed, hence the failing to pay them full overtime. This article also states that the restitution is only $460K and not the $850K as stated prior. Of that $460K, taxes are also paid to the State and Fed Gov't's. Also keep in mind this is for a 2 year time frame as a total.

What seems to have had happened here is that the workers were paid for their time worked, there was no second set of books, but part of overtime was not paid. The workers were exploited and are getting their just rewards by receiving restitution for back pay.

Do you have any links to any other company that it can be shown that the company was having a second set of books? I enjoy semantics as much as the next guy, what Bianco did was not having a second set of books, but cooking the books buy eliminating the overtime charge of time and a half to just straight time. Its easily done, in quickbooks its just a matter of unchecking one box in the employees file.

Also why do you think Bianco was charging for toilet paper, other consumables, etc, and exact times if late or over break time??

Liquidmicro said...

After the raid, workers alleged that Insolia and his managers had exploited them and subjected them to poor working conditions, including fining them $20 for such “infractions” as spending more than two minutes in a restroom stall or talking while working.

From the above link.

Could this be where there half time could have went, to pay for infractions?

Liquidmicro said...

If these companies were to show real gross receipts and net profits offset only by the diminished payrolls they work on, the government would be getting a huge chunk of their over-inflated profits. Hence they must cook the books in order to make the whole endeavor profitable.

Another note.... If the over-inflated profits are there, the Gov't gets a % of that as well, simply when the company files its tax returns and shows such a large profit, it could also put them into another, higher, tax bracket. In the long run, it would be cheaper to just pay the employees and the taxes owed from them then to pay on profits.

I understand what you are wanting to try to prove, but so far, you've proven nothing. I think we can agree that the companies all were skimming and exploiting the workers, and that the workers should have the money owed to them if they can show they were shorted.

Economics is a funny thing, its a numbers game.

On a side note, have you noticed that almost all the HR persons of all the companies raided were of Hispanic/Latino sur-names and that almost all companies were owned by legal immigrants.

Alie said...

Guess what, anonymous? I don't live in a "red state." Whatever makes you think that I do?

Here's the thing you are missing: whether my state gets funding for programs which legal citizens use or for other federally authorized programs such as 287(g) is not the issue. What is the issue is supporting states with tax money who deliberately act as "sanctuary states." Illegal immigration is, well, illegal.

Here's the other issue: securing the border. Our government did not secure the border in 1986 after the last blanket amnesty. Do you remember this statement: "Henceforth our borders will be secured and our immigration laws enforced. We will NEVER AGAIN revisit the issue of amnesty." How did that work out for us?

Fool me once shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. All an amnesty does is encourages yet another wave of illegals and builds yet more support to legalize the next batch. No thanks. We just cannot afford this.

Not only that, but this country does not need another 100 million mostly poor and uneducated immigrants added in the next few decades. There is such a thing as sustainability also.

What we do need is a system like most other developed countries have. One that meets our needs in the 21st century. We need to cut out the "family reunification" system and go to a point system much like other countries have. This will open up the pipeline for immigrants to come who will benefit this nation and who will best assimilate.

Liquidmicro said...

and that California, New York, Mass, Conn, New Jersey, etc ...all those states that allow themselves to "be inundated with illegal aliens" ... who pay far more than they receive, ultimately pay for those 287g programs along with much of your states social services etc.

I live in California, we are "inundated with illegal aliens" and by no means are we ahead. The state is now $48 Billion in debt, of which the "illegal aliens" are part of. The only 287(g) programs in the state are in Southern California.

The ICE 287(g) Program: A Law Enforcement Partnership

California's Budget Problems Exacerbated by Illegal Immigration

Liquidmicro said...

Here, I found the info you are attempting to use Anon.

Executives of cleaning firm indicted

In another big case, three principals of RCI, a multimillion-dollar cleaning firm, were charged last month for tax evasion and harboring illegal aliens. The workers were recruited at Hispanic fairs and through Spanish newspapers and were never required to fill out W-4 tax-withholding documents or I-9 employee-verification forms, according to the federal indictment. All wages were paid in cash through a variety of shell companies, prosecutors say.

RCI seems to be the only company so far to be using the underground economy in a cash only pay program. There are numerous smaller companies, such as a Baltimore Sushi chain paying in cash or partial cash payments to workers.